But having said that, I'm not sure "Robin Hood" is a movie anyone needs to see, or that anyone would have any reason to anticipate. It's a near-perfect example of what I've been saying recently about remakes and sequels and reboots and prequels. It is a fascinating miscalculation by smart and talented people, and it's the sort of film that must be frustrating to make, because there's no one way to fix it once things go as wrong as they go here.

I love "Gladiator." Unreservedly. I still think it's one of the best and most audience-minded movies Ridley Scott ever made. I think it's incredibly good at what it does. There's a tone, a style, a dramatic energy that the film gets just right. Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott are equally responsible for that film's success, and there's no way to overstate the importance of Joaquin Phoenix's performance as a very, very bad bad guy.

The thing that "Gladiator" gets right that "Robin Hood" misses completely is a sense of fun. Yes, there's a sense of tension and urgency, and the stakes in "Gladiator" are certainly personal and sad, but there's a sense of fun to the mayhem, a thrill. I think Scott has a tin ear for "fun" a lot of the time. He does somber well. He does moody well. He does atmospheric as well as anyone. "A Good Year," his comedy with Russell Crowe in the lead, is a good example of what happens when Ridley Scott does "funny." Maybe the lumps he took on that one explain the swing towards pure dour, which is what "Robin Hood" is, and it's a shame.

To be fair, the script is by Brian Helgeland, working from an earlier draft by Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris, and almost all of the film's problems start with the script. The first question, and the most important one, is "why?" Why was this story told? What does this illuminate about the Robin Hood myth or legend, or what new ideas does it offer up about history? How does this add to the tradition of stories that have been told about this character? When you're spending $200 million or more on a new version of something that's been filmed over and over already, doesn't it seem like you should be adding something? Or at least know what story it is that you're telling?

I don't mean to sound glib, but even typing out the summary for the film bores me. It's all plot mechanics to no real purpose. Robin Longstride (Crowe) is a fighting man who is part of the seemingly-endless Crusade of King Richard (Danny Huston) right up to the moment where Richard falls in battle. Robin decides to head home to England, and he's joined by three more men equally tired of the fighting, Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes), Allan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle), and Little John (Kevin Durand). On the road home, they witness a massacre led by the moustache-twirling bad guy Godfrey (Mark Strong) and they end up taking on the identity of the men who were killed, leading them to the home of Sir Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow). For the flimsiest of reasons, Robin goes on playing the part of Sir Walter's dead son, which means he has to pose as the husband of Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett).

Then a bunch of people fight on a beach. The end.

The entire film exists to build to a moment at the very end, when everyone's standing around in the heart of Sherwood Forest, ready to go rob from the rich, meaning the entire film is meant to get us to the point where the "real" story of Robin Hood begins. I'm sick to death of seeing "the story behind the story," particularly when "the story behind the story" is nowhere near as compelling as the story itself. I guarantee no one would know the name of Robin Hood today if this were the story that were originally told. It's a muddled bag of shifting motivations, murky political intrigue, and large-scale battles with no dramatic thrust at all. Ridley Scott can shoot a battle, no doubt about it, but until I saw this film, I didn't realize how crushingly boring a beautifully-staged battle sequence could be if you don't care about the outcome or any of the characters wrapped up in it.

There are good actors drowning in this quicksand, like Oscar Isaac, who plays Prince John. He works hard to make this John into a figure of some ambiguity, but he's undone by the way the script handles him. Likewise, the Merry Men are all engaging performers with a natural chemistry as a group, and yet they're basically background and given no chance to do anything especially memorable. Mark Addy's Friar Tuck is probably the worst example of a character with no rudder whatsoever. Mark Strong gives one of the first truly uninteresting performances of his career here, hampered by a character who is bad simply for the sake of being bad, but who has so little to do onscreen other than randomly kill extras that it almost seems like a waste of letters to give him a name.

Russell Crowe's best performances are both physical and internal, a combination of his brawler's exterior and a keen intelligence behind his eyes. He is at his best when he has a clear goal in a film and pursues it at all costs. Here, because Robin Longstride has such a confused central purpose in the film, Crowe is absolutely adrift. His best moments are with Cate Blanchett, but that's just because the two of them are such pros. Their "love story" is perfunctory and nonsensical, totally unmotivated, and by the time she shows up on the beach during the final battle wearing armor for some reason, I realized that no one on the film had any idea why anything was happening. It is a collection of moments, beats that they think should be in the film without any connective tissue justifying anything you see.

Tech credits on the film are as good as money can be, and utterly squandered. "Robin Hood" is a soulless, empty, noisy dud, and in the future, when they hold a war crimes tribunal to prosecute all the studio heads of our era for the way they are shamelessly cannibalizing our culture without contributing anything new, "Robin Hood" will make a lovely bit of evidence for the prosecution. The art of storytelling depends on one skill in particular... knowing when to start and story and when to end it. And in an age of endless prequels adding backstory no one ever asked for, the only thing this Robin Hood is stealing is the audience's time.

And I am well within my rights to think you are a barking loony if you think this is better than "Gladiator." Can you even tell me what Robin's overall goal in the film is? Hmmm? Because that would seem to be the FIRST THING YOU WANT TO DO when writing a film, and I have yet to hear two people offer up the same excuse for his actions in the film. It's a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE screenplay.

His goal is simple. Something about England... and its people... and equality and freedom...I don't know, maybe we saw different movies. The screenplay is a hell of a lot better than Avatar. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. The humor is great (perhaps too British for you) and the film has top class acting, directing, cinematography, music and dynamics. And it has a heart. Probably the best movie of the year so far, and very likely to get a Best Picture nod in January.

I have to agree. Stronger than GLADIATOR. Stronger than a few previous versions of the tale as well. I can't do the ex post thing and say 'it didn't fit screenwriting principles', because in the moment, it seemed to work. I wish I'd seen it before GLADIATOR, as I suspect it would feel like the better film.

Bummer, though not because I was anticipating this movie or looking forward to it in any way; just that I hate to have seen so many talented people lock away years of their career only to deliver us with something of utterly no consequence. Let's not even mention that Crowe had big shoes to fill (not just cinematically, but nationally; Errol Flynn being Australia and everything) and clearly should have been up to something greater.

It's a shame that we've now had two big-budget ROBIN HOOD busts. I blame PRINCE OF THIEVES for squandering all of the interest I had in the character as a kid (I think I saw that movie at 8 and thought it was utterly ridiculous and boring) and now we've got this, nearly twenty years later, surely squandering any young mind's interest in ROBIN HOOD.

Can someone, somewhere get a good, solid re-release of both the classic Errol Flynn version and the Disney animated one?

This reviewer suffers from movie ennui, boredom, boredom and yet more boredom.So the argument against seeing this film is: he doesn't like the idea of the film. McWeeney says the film is well made but he isn't impressed. Ah shucks. I hate reviews like this they are incredibly pompous.This guy already actively disliked this film BEFORE HE SAW IT.

I would prefer to be gearing up to watch the Hernan Cortes and the conquest of Mexico movie called "The Serpent and the Eagle" that Helgeland and Scott were collaborating on before starting work on Robin Hood, although the thought of such an incredible and tragic story at the hands of Helgeland is a frightful thought. Oh well. Hopefully we'll get a good swords and sandals epic in the future.

I made the mistake of reading this review this afternoon before seeing an advance screening tonight. Throughout the movie I kept thinking to myself "What movie was HE watching?" Because your review didn't match the movie I saw.

Lucky you. Maybe lowered expectations helped. But can you explain how a dude in his 50s running around yelling about freedom and liberty has anything to do with Robin Hood, who was never a "freedom and liberty" kind of guy in any incarnation of the story? Or what the stakes are for Robin in the story? Or what motivates John's reversal in the end? Or what the Magna Carta has to do with "steal from the rich and give to the poor"? Or why Marion and the Lost Boys ride into battle at the end of the film? Or what purpose William Hurt served beyond looking confused?

I get your points Drew but I do feel you are being a bit harsh on this movie and lumping it in too casually with much less thoughtful fare.

I can't really dispute your overall characterization of the proceedings, but I do think the competence on display deserves more than a yawn relative to what else we are expected to eat at theatres anymore. I also think we are entitled to a new Robin Hood movie since the last one got at least as much wrong as it did right (the attempted rape played for laughs and Christian Slater's modern lingo in one scene puncture the whole thing for me...so maybe I entered a bit too wanting I'll grant).

The movie does has some wobbly and contrived things that bothered me. Marion in armor with the Knights repelling the French strains all credulity and the feral offspring of Nottingham's lost fathers were a wasted device and in the end were made ludicrous by joining Marion's charge of the light brigade on Shetland Ponies.

I guess I could get in a dig too.

I hoped for a better (or more memorable) score as well and a movie about Robin Hood, regardless of the time frame, should probably be a bit more rousing but most anyone that likes the knights/swords genre will probably find things to like, if not love.

Not a great endorsement I suppose but still somewhere above where you pegged it I think.

You were bored typing out the summary, but I got bored just thinking about it. Just when there was hope that Crowe and Scott had reached their collective nadir with "A Good Year". Ridley Scott, for all his experience and great director's eye, still cannot tell the difference between bloated/boring and majestic/mesmerising. Let's hope he figures it out for Alien Harvest. And for heaven's sake, no Crowe on that one - please.

The more I learn about what they did do to confuse such a beautifully elemental story, the less I can understand why anybody who mattered in this process wanted to make the movie at all. What was the point to paying all of these stars to tell the story of Robin Hood before there was the story of Robin Hood? The title is even false advertising. And if Ridley Scott doesn't have a better movie to spend his time making than this one, maybe it's time he hung up his viewfinder?

Great review, and great commentary on the state of the industry. Personally, I think the studio business model has reached the point of diminishing returns - the increased number of shareholders each year (a necessity for any public corporation that doesn't want a class action suit) mixed with the collapse of traditional branding systems in the face of social media... means that original content will have to be produced - even marketed - independently. In the meantime, the studios gotta make something.

I was saying this exact thing, based on what I saw in the trailers. Robin Hood is supposed to be charming and dashing. There looks to be none of that. Russel Crowe should have played him exactly as he played Jack Aubrey in Master and Commander. THAT is a perfect representation of Robin Hood. Tough, bad-ass, leader of men, but a wry smile and a charming anecdote or two as well. What a bummer.

I lost interest in this the second it stopped being "Nottingham," which was a fantastic spin on the old Robin Hood legend. Now it's just another retelling of the old Robin Hood legend, except with "backstory trauma" now. Pass.

I blame Disney for the current state of Zero Originality, they proved very well that one can make billions of $s by telling stories too old to be protected by copyright. Why be motivated to create something new when you can rip someone off legally? Shame.

Like I said I can't really dispute anything you said Drew. I wanted to like it more than I was able to for sure and I probably gave a quick pass based on the good elements that are here even if they don't stand well on their own as a whole. I still wouldn't lump it in with the worst of the trend but that's hardly a recommendation I guess.

To be honest, even if this was good review, I'm not so sure I would see this movie. I've seen the trailer a couple of times and it just did not interest me. I really like Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott but nothing I've seen excites me or makes me want to see tis movie. You know what it feels like? "King Arthur" It's got a strong "King Arthur" vibe to it. Right. "It's the story behnd the legend." Hey man, don't mess with my legends. I like my legends the way they are.

Mc Weeney, According to you questioning your judgement on Robin Hood transformed me into a ,"hyper-defensive baby?' If you set yourself up as a internet critic offering your views Be prepared to accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you.Name-calling is not professional behavior.That review you wrote comes across as angry.Your grasp of medieval history isn't particularly impressive.Most of those questions you posed can be found in a history text or actually if you followed the story they would have been self-evident.

Drew, I noticed you asked one of the guys on this thread what he thought Robin's goal was.For me he discovers himself through the course of the somewhat contrived events. He falls in love with Marion, and through Marion sees someone worth fighting for, and who gives him purpose he didn't have at the beginning of the film. Add on to that him coming to terms with what actually happened to his father, and discovering what his father was all about, fairness for the people - I don't know - that smacks of a perfectly decent journey for a main character in a film for me.

It's all a matter of opinion of course. Worth noting that the picture has received much, much better reviews here in the UK. The US reviews that I have read concentrate way too much on what they think the film 'should be' and not what it is. For me the first rule of film criticism is to leave any expectations you might have at the door if you're going to review something for what it is, and not what it isn't.

I think you made some valid points, but I personally enjoyed the fresh take on the myth and lost myself in the sheer beauty of the craftsmanship on display. This is one of the best looking films made in many a year, and well worth any film fan's time.

At least you do respect other's takes on it Drew. Unlike other bloggers and critics.

I appreciate the film didn't work for you. There's plenty of movies I've seen that others love that I just can't get into.

Perhaps there was a part of me that went into RH expecting not to like it so much and being pleasantly surprised. Maybe it is because I'm British? I don't know - lol

Anyway, I'm sure you would agree with me when I say that watching a film with the production values of Robin Hood makes you wish for a return to the days when every big budget movie looked that good.

It was a genuine shock to the system for me to see a film on this scale that had actual real sets, locations, extras etc. Perhaps for the middle section of the film that did sag, I was kept alert by how good it looked.

Still think its worth anybody's time over most of what's in theaters right now.

Caught this film, finally today. I had no intention of ever seeing it after it was so widely panned, but it came on tv and I caught about half hour of the middle. I enjoyed what I saw so I decided to go get it and give it a real go.

Pleasantly surprised is how I felt!

Honestly, I think this film fell victim to the hype, the mixed messaging as far as story goes (clone Crowe as Sheriff and Robin?) and some misplaced expectation, that and the fact the 'real' and 'true' and 'gritty' take on everything was getting tired.

Anyway, the 'coincidence' of Robin coming across his long lost daddy's best friend and what not is quite a stretch and I didn't like the turns of the lasts 20mins so much, but all in all I found it a fun (I know you said it wasn't Drew but I respectfully disagree!) and entertaining romp with some good characters and pretty fantastic acting throughout.

I think seeing it without all the baggage everyone else had attached to themselves at the time really lead the hate moreso than the film itself.

I actually found myself wishing it was an hour longer, turn it from a relatively small scale (in terms of scope) tale into a longer, more thought out and fulfilling one.

Some things felt rushed and without the right motive and I'd love to have seen those pieces in there to give us a chance to get truly invested in everything just a bit more.

Anyway, I didn't LOVE it, but it was well done (as you implied) and forgiving it some of it's, truly at the time, overblown mistakes, it is a pretty descent turn at the legend